Yeah I hear Dennis Jensens call for an inquiry into the actual science that is behind alot of the scientists conclusion of climate change caused by man, now he is a WA liberal MP, Phd from Monash university, A masters of science from melbourne university, and has been a researcher for the CSIRO, and he has constantly challenged the whole climate change science.


========================================================


September 30, 2010

Admission to the Gillard government’s climate change committee is very similar to admission to the former Soviet Union’s parliament, only people of one view need apply! In the case of the Soviet Parliament, in order to stand for election, you needed to be a member of the Communist Party (perhaps this is why the premise for the committee has so much appeal to Gillard, given her previous membership of the Socialist Alliance – a group who were essentially communist in outlook). In order to get onto the climate change committee, not only do you need to be a signed on anthropogenic global warming believer, but you also need to believe that the only way that you can address the problem is not only through abatement of carbon dioxide emissions, but you need to apply a price on carbon dioxide.

Let’s consider that human activity is causing global warming, and that carbon dioxide is the direct cause. Even under those circumstances, why is a price on carbon dioxide the only solution? Consider the introduction of nuclear power, for example. The Switkowski Report into nuclear power indicated that there would be a need for a price on carbon dioxide for nuclear to be competitive, but that factored in the then-current price of coal fired power. The more realistic cost of power and the fact that these power stations had effectively been subsidised when in government hands is now coming home to bite, with prices of electricity from coal fired power increasing such that nuclear would clearly be cost competitive. This confirms data from the USA and South Africa, both of which have abundant cheap coal and also nuclear power. This is clearly off the agenda for the Committee for Predetermined Outcomes.


Additionally, multiple other means have been discussed regarding mechanisms to, for example, reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation to “cool the planet”. These are clearly also off the table. Only putting a tax on the ubiquitous carbon dioxide will have any effect on the globes average temperature, it appears.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in the first Question Time of the new Parliament made the Orwellian statement that the committee was to have a completely open mind. On what, pray tell, Prime Minister?

Dr Dennis jensen

Then you get ignorant commentators like Bernard Keene on Crikey also stating that “The Coalition are also putting on some confected outrage that the committee is only open to members who believe in man-made climate change and support a carbon price. Reduced to basics, that means you have to be rational and economically-literate to participate”. In other words, according to Keene, you are only rational if you go along with the AGW dogma (so the likes of MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, winner of a NASA prize Dr John Christy, amongst a host of others, are not “rational”), and you are only economically literate if you believe the “carbon price” and “action later is more costly” dogma, ruling out the likes of Prof Richard Tol and Prof Bjorn Lomborg. Sometimes you really need to wonder about intellectual pygmies criticising anyone who disagrees with their worldview.

In conclusion, I believe that there needs to be a review of the issue. The review needs to be rigorous, not some kludged up Committee of Predetermined Outcomes. A Royal Commission into the science is required.

Dr. Dennis Jensen is the Federal Member for Tangney

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

=======================================================


Better believe it, 

Do you think Santa Klaus would help out?  by perceptions

========================================================

If you believe in santa clause, i guess you would go that far and believe in man made climate change, wouldn't you, be comfortably brainwashed, 

Sure stryder, but would you support the outcome if it went against the answer you wanted??

I think the parliament should put out a worldwide open invitation. Any scientist can rock up. Their qualifications would have to be checked. You can't let anyone turn up and claim to be a climate scientist. They need a degree from a credible university, they need to have worked in climate research or some sort of relevant field, the probably will need to have published something on the subject. But make it open to any scientist around the world and they can't be turned down unless they are unqualified. Disagreeing with the IPCC is not a disqualification.

So all these scientists rock up and present their research to the parliament. They are subjected to questioning. By parliamentarians and fellow scientists. And we get to the bottom of it. It's a worldwide open invitation. So if climate skeptics want to be involved they can be. They'll just have to understand they will be questioned and debated. But they'll have a few minutes to present their findings uninterrupted. So I expect scientists of all opinions to show up. And I would hope that all these scientists and politicians together and get to the bottom of what the research actual shows and what it all means for the future of the environment and humanity. But most importantly, if there anything we can do about it? Even if we caused it, can we reverse it. Or is that futile at this point and we should focus our efforts on adaption to a new climate if we can?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:38pm:



Is that all you`ve got? No facts, all emotion?

BobH wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:38pm:


Well, there goes Lord Munckton!